in the Interestof Z.H., J.H., and K.H., Children ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                       IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-15-00081-CV
    IN THE INTERESTOF Z.H., J.H., AND K.H., CHILDREN
    From the 74th District Court
    McLennan County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2013-2606-3
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    After Appellant’s parental rights to his children Z.H., J.H., and K.H. were
    terminated following a bench trial,1 Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a
    notice of appeal.2 Appellant’s counsel has now filed an Anders brief and a motion to
    withdraw. Counsel asserts that she has diligently reviewed the record and that, in her
    opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 18
    1
    Appellant’s rights were terminated under Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D), 161.001(1)(E), and
    161.001(1)(O).
    2
    The parental rights of D.S., the children’s mother, were also terminated, but she has not appealed. Also,
    she did not appear at trial.
    L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re E.L.Y., 
    69 S.W.3d 838
    , 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order)
    (applying Anders to termination appeal).
    Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders; it presents a professional
    evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See
    In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief
    need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
    provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
    authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant’s
    counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
    error in the trial court’s order of termination. Counsel has informed us that she has: (1)
    examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a
    copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Appellant; and (3) provided
    Appellant with a copy of the record and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.
    See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 
    Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510
    n.3; High v. State,
    
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409
    n.23. Appellant did not file a pro se response.
    Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
    proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80, 
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 349-50, 
    102 L. Ed. 2d 300
    (1988). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or
    “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n.10, 
    108 S. Ct. 1895
    , 1902 n.10, 
    100 L. Ed. 2d 440
    (1988).
    In the Interest of Z.H., J.H., and K.H., Children                                       Page 2
    We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found nothing
    that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827-28 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
    considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but
    found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 47.1.”); 
    Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509
    . Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
    order of termination.
    In accordance with Anders, counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. We grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion and
    judgment, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant
    and to advise Appellant of his right to pursue a petition for review in the Texas Supreme
    Court.
    REX D. DAVIS
    Justice
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Davis, and
    Justice Scoggins
    Affirmed
    Opinion delivered and filed June 25, 2015
    [CV06]
    3Any petition for review must be filed within forty-five days after the date of either this opinion or the last
    ruling by this Court on all timely filed motions for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(a). Any petition for
    review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53.2. See 
    id. at R.
    53.2.
    In the Interest of Z.H., J.H., and K.H., Children                                                       Page 3